this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2025
620 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

76587 readers
2886 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
620
ICE's 'Frightening' Facial Recognition App is Scanning US Citizens Without Their Consent (www.commondreams.org)
submitted 2 days ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
122 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Witnesses who are too far away to see their identification can still see their face to ID them.

Sure, I just don't think that's a reasonable thing to require at all times.

Instead, the public should be free to approach to a safe distance to film, and then attempt to talk with law enforcement when safe. A police officer is required to identify themselves to the suspect due to the fourth amendment. Whether they are required to identify themselves to the public is up to local law, court precedent, and agency policy.

The general public doesn’t need to be identifiable at all times like cops do.

Neither do. Police only need to be identifiable when using their authority, such as when making an arrest or dealing with protests, and in the latter case, only agency affiliation is necessary.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Sure, I just don’t think that’s a reasonable thing to require at all times.

It is. There's literally no reason they ever need to be masked.

Neither do. Police only need to be identifiable when using their authority, such as when making an arrest or dealing with protests, and in the latter case, only agency affiliation is necessary.

Disagree. Police serve the public. If they are working they should all be identifiable so they can't step out of line. Especially during protests. Otherwise we end up with priest getting shot in the eyes with pepper rounds.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 minutes ago* (last edited 4 minutes ago)

There’s literally no reason they ever need to be masked.

Cops have rights too. If an officer wants to wear a mask, I don't see any reason to deny them that. They must, however, identify themselves, the risk of someone pretending to be law enforcement is too great.

Police serve the public. If they are working they should all be identifiable

Agreed, I just don't think masks are the issue here. IMO, officers involved in protest duty should have their badge number on their uniform in a big enough font for a camera to pick up. Likewise, body cameras should be on and recording the entire time.